Fallon+v.+INDIAN+TRAIL+SCHOOL

Michael Mooney Fallon v. INDIAN TRAIL SCHOOL, ADDISON TP. SCH. DIST., 500 NE 2d 101 - Ill: Appellate Court, 2nd Dist. 1986 Mary Jane Fallon was hurt while attending Indian Trail School in Addison Township School District No. 4. The incident occurred during a physical education session when Ms. Fallon was using a trampoline. She sustained spinal injuries from an attempted flip and is now looking to recover damages from the school, the district, and the teachers. Her claim was that the trampoline and the activity from using the trampoline were “abnormally dangerous” and therefore a violation of section 10-20.8 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 10-20.8). Ms. Fallon cited as a precedent for her claim of abnormal dangerous activity the case //City of Joliet v. Harwood// (1877), 86 Ill. 110, which defined ultra hazardous activities. The original decision of the courts was to dismiss the counts of contention and rule in favor of the defendants. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Court as they agreed to the dismissal of the charges. The court agreed that the case, //City of Joliet v. Harwood// (1877), does contain and define ultra hazardous activity, however, the subject of trampoline and trampoline usage does not fall into the parameters of the law. The court added that negligent use can be a basis for liability, but the ordinary use of a trampoline does not make it abnormally dangerous, //Snow v. Judy// (1968), 96 Ill. App.2d 420, 423. The final portion of the case, the negligent hiring of the teachers in question, was also dismissed. The court concluded there was not sufficient evidence that would show the school system knew the teachers were able and willing to do harm to others citing the case, //Gregor v. Kleiser// (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 333 where the employer had previous knowledge of inherent dangers. This type of case should give teachers second thoughts as to what kind of activities they try to use when their students are involved. There is danger in almost all things children do, at home and at school, teachers and school have to be extra diligent when it comes to choosing the safest means of education and physical activity. Cases like this one and others where the school is liable or seen as liable, result in less activities for the student based on the fear of reprisal from the parents if someone gets hurt. Field trips, rougher physical education activities, and even playground recess time have been dramatically cut back in an effort to lessen the likelihood of suits being brought against the teachers and the schools. **Question:** If there is an injury to a student, does that injury mean negligence on behalf of the teacher who was supervising? Explain.
 * Background:**
 * Decision and Rationale:**
 * Impact on Teaching:**

Jessica Oliver

**Mary Jane Fallon v. Indian Trail School, Addison Township School District No. 4** **Illinois Appellate Court- Second District** **Opinion filed October 31, 1986 Rehearing denied December 2, 1986**

The plaintiff, Mary Jane Fallon, was injured in a trampoline accident during her physical education class during her sixth grade year of school on February 23, 1975. She received spinal injuries after attempting a “front- drop” on the trampoline. She filed a four- count complaint against the school, the school district, and the two teachers of the class in an attempt to recover damages for her injuries. The first two counts deal with the trampoline being an abnormally dangerous instrumentality. Cases dealing with dangerous defective products, such as //__Suvada v. White Motor Co__//., and cases involving ultra hazardous activities, such as //__City of Joliet v. Harwood__//, were used in determining this case.
 * Background:**

The court upheld the ruling of the original court to dismiss counts l, ll, and lll. The court found that a trampoline could not be considered an abnormally dangerous instrumentality. This court also ruled to dismiss count lV. Count lV alleged that the school district did not follow proper protocol in hiring employees. The court ruled that there was not sufficient reasoning to prove negligent hiring. The case of //__Gregor v. Kleiser__// was reviewed which determined that “negligent hiring arises only when a particular unfitness of an applicant creates a danger of harm to a third person which the employer knew, or should have known, when he hired and placed this applicant in employment where he could injure others.”
 * Decision and Rationale:**

Although the courts decided with the school involving the use of a trampoline, hopefully this created awareness to the possible dangers involving certain instruments in the schools. Over the years school do seem to be more careful in the types of activities that go on during the school day. This case was also a good example of teachers being protected against accidents that occur at school, many of which could happen anywhere. Teachers should feel protected against situations from which they cannot prevent.
 * Impact on Teaching**:

What was the case //__Gregor v. Kleiser__// about?

 **Reviewed by: David Boeck **   **148 Ill. App.3d 931 (1986) **  **500 N.E.2d 101 **  **MARY JANE FALLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, ** No. 85-0806.  **Illinois Appellate Court — Second District. ** Opinion filed October 31, 1986. <span style="display: block; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; text-align: center;">Rehearing denied December 2, 1986.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"> v. **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"> INDIAN TRAIL SCHOOL, ADDISON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 4, et al., Defendants-Appellees. **

Background: A young girl was injured at school in the presence of and under the supervision of two teachers. The teachers were conducting a Physical Education class using a trampoline. The young girl. Mary Jane Fallon, was severely injured while attempting a difficult maneuver on the trampoline and consequently sued the school district and the teachers involved for recovery of damages suffered. The first three counts were thrown out a fourth continues through the courts. Decision and rationale: The plaintiff Ms. Fallon contended that there was grievous danger involved in the trampoline activities and that it was a <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">unreasonably dangerous defective product. The courts ruled against the first three complaints citing these cases; [|//Morrow v. L.A. Goldschmidt Associates, Inc.// (1984), 126 Ill. App.3d 1089, 1096,] //rev'd// [|//other grounds// (1986), 112 Ill.2d 87], [|//Denkewalter v. Wolberg// (1980), 82 Ill. App.3d 569, 572], ([|//Suvada v. White Motor Co.// (1965), 32 Ill.2d 612, 621]), and the theory which plaintiff alleges is applicable to this case, ultra-hazardous activities ([|//City of Joliet v. Harwood// (1877), 86 Ill. 110]. Count IV alleged that the willful and wanton misconduct of all of the defendants with regard to the method in which they conducted the physical education class was upheld. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Implications: <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">We as teachers are to be held responsible for any bad decisions we make regarding the safety of the students that we are supervising. We will have to be hyper diligent to ensure that we do not allow a student to engage in any activity is not unduly put at risk by that activity. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Question- Are teachers responsible/liable for the unsafe activities that they allow their students to engage in? True/False answer: True